Machine learning systems increasingly make life-changing decisions about individuals, such as loan approvals, hiring, and cheating detection, raising a pressing question: how can individuals respond to negative decisions made by these opaque systems? While explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has largely focused on algorithmic recourse -- helping individuals change their features to obtain a desired outcome -- the parallel problem of algorithmic contestability -- helping individuals review and correct erroneous algorithmic decisions -- has received far less attention, despite its central ethical and legal importance. We trace this neglect to the absence of clear formal definitions and a systematic operationalization of contestability as an algorithmic problem. To address it, we propose an operational definition of contestability as a natural complement to recourse: contestability starts from the presumption that a decision may be incorrect and focuses on identifying evidence to challenge and potentially overturn it, whereas recourse assumes the decision is valid and instead provides pathways for changing it. We show that standard XAI explanations, such as counterfactuals, LIME, or Anchors, even when combined with human intuitions about decision continuity or monotonicity, reveal only errors in the neighborhood of the individual, but provide insufficient grounds for overturning the decision at hand. Going thus beyond traditional XAI, we identify three types of evidence warranting reversal according to the decision maker's own ethical standards: predictive multiplicity, incorrect feature values, and neglected overruling evidence. We argue that these render decisions normatively indefensible and thus successfully contestable. Finally, we analyze how existing EU legislation connects to our framework and argue that individuals already hold some legal rights to these forms of evidence.

We propose Confusions over Time (CoT), a novel generative framework which facilitates a multi-granular analysis of the decision making process. The CoT not only models the confusions or error properties of individual decision makers and their evolution over time, but also allows us to obtain diagnostic insights into the collective decision making process in an interpretable manner.

Numerous real-world systems, ranging from healthcare to energy grids, involve users competing for finite and potentially scarce resources. Designing policies for repeated resource allocation in such real-world systems is challenging for many reasons, including the changing nature of user types and their (possibly urgent) need for resources. Researchers have developed numerous machine learning solutions for determining repeated resource allocation policies in these challenging settings. However, a key limitation has been the absence of good methods and test-beds for benchmarking these policies; almost all resource allocation policies are benchmarked in environments which are either completely synthetic or do not allow any deviation from historical data. In this paper we introduce AllSim, which is a benchmarking environment for realistically simulating the impact and utility of policies for resource allocation in systems in which users compete for such scarce resources. Building such a benchmarking environment is challenging because it needs to successfully take into account the entire collective of potential users and the impact a resource allocation policy has on all the other users in the system. AllSim's benchmarking environment is modular (each component being parameterized individually), learnable (informed by historical data), and customizable (adaptable to changing conditions). These, when interacting with an allocation policy, produce a dataset of simulated outcomes for evaluation and comparison of such policies. We believe AllSim is an essential step towards a more systematic evaluation of policies for scarce resource allocation compared to current approaches for benchmarking such methods.

In online learning, a decision maker repeatedly selects one of a set of actions, with the goal of minimizing the overall loss incurred. Following the recent line of research on algorithms endowed with additional predictive features, we revisit this problem by allowing the decision maker to acquire additional information on the actions to be selected. In particular, we study the power of \emph{best-action queries}, which reveal beforehand the identity of the best action at a given time step. In practice, predictive features may be expensive, so we allow the decision maker to issue at most $k$ such queries.We establish tight bounds on the performance any algorithm can achieve when given access to $k$ best-action queries for different types of feedback models. In particular, we prove that in the full feedback model, $k$ queries are enough to achieve an optimal regret of $\Theta(\min\{\sqrt T, \frac{T}{k}\})$. This finding highlights the significant multiplicative advantage in the regret rate achievable with even a modest (sublinear) number $k \in \Omega(\sqrt{T})$ of queries. Additionally, we study the challenging setting in which the only available feedback is obtained during the time steps corresponding to the $k$ best-action queries.

We consider the problem of active sequential hypothesis testing where a Bayesian decision maker must infer the true hypothesis from a set of hypotheses. The decision maker may choose for a set of actions, where the outcome of an action is corrupted by independent noise. In this paper we consider a special case where the decision maker has limited knowledge about the distribution of observations for each action, in that only a binary value is observed. Our objective is to infer the true hypothesis with low error, while minimizing the number of action sampled. Our main results include the derivation of a lower bound on sample size for our system under limited knowledge and the design of an active learning policy that matches this lower bound and outperforms similar known algorithms.

The Multi-Armed Bandits (MAB) framework highlights the trade-off between acquiring new knowledge (Exploration) and leveraging available knowledge (Exploitation). In the classical MAB problem, a decision maker must choose an arm at each time step, upon which she receives a reward. The decision maker's objective is to maximize her cumulative expected reward over the time horizon. The MAB problem has been studied extensively, specifically under the assumption of the arms' rewards distributions being stationary, or quasi-stationary, over time. We consider a variant of the MAB framework, which we termed Rotting Bandits, where each arm's expected reward decays as a function of the number of times it has been pulled. We are motivated by many real-world scenarios such as online advertising, content recommendation, crowdsourcing, and more. We present algorithms, accompanied by simulations, and derive theoretical guarantees.

We propose Confusions over Time (CoT), a novel generative framework which facilitates a multi-granular analysis of the decision making process. The CoT not only models the confusions or error properties of individual decision makers and their evolution over time, but also allows us to obtain diagnostic insights into the collective decision making process in an interpretable manner.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/